On the need for fairness by the state-owned media

Mar 20, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – In any democratic society, the media has an obligation to disseminate diverse viewpoints. The free press is an agent of a democratic society and by ensuring that citizens have access to a broad spectrum of opinions, the media not only fulfills its democratic mandate but also empowers individuals to actively engage in the democratic process and shape the future of their society.

The public can only do this through a process of informed decision-making and which is only possible if the public has access to a wide array of perspectives. Having this access allows individuals to evaluate issues from multiple angles and form well-rounded opinions. However, when the media succumbs to bias, particularly when it’s state-owned, it undermines these fundamental principles. The historic and long-standing concerns raised regarding biased coverage by the state-owned media in favor of the ruling party underscore a pressing need for reform in the way the state-owned media is managed.

Throughout the tenure of various governments, including the APNU+AFC coalition, state-owned media outlets have been criticised for their partisan reporting. They have been accused, in my opinion justifiably, with neglecting to provide adequate coverage to opposition parties. This imbalance not only undermines the democratic process but also hampers the public’s right to access diverse perspectives on critical issues.

The state-owned media is not an obscure entity. It is supposed to play a major role in shaping public discourse and informing citizens. As entities funded by taxpayers’ money, they bear a responsibility to uphold journalistic integrity and impartiality. However, recent observations suggest a significant deviation from this ethos, with state-owned media outlets increasingly resembling propaganda arms of the government rather than independent news sources.

One glaring manifestation of this bias is evident in the coverage—or lack thereof—of opposition viewpoints, particularly during significant events such as budget deliberations. When you tune in to state-owned broadcasters, it is as if you are listening or watching a pro-government entity or reading a ruling party rag.

While more than ample airtime is dedicated to government speeches and initiatives, opposition perspectives are often sidelined or ignored altogether. The publicity that the Opposition gets is negative publicity. Such one-sided reporting not distorts public perception and stifles the robust exchange of ideas vital to a healthy democracy.

But while the Opposition is complaining about the lack of coverage of its views on the state-owned broadcast and print media, the National Communications Network (NCN) has been alleging threats and intimidation against state-owned media operatives covering opposition events. Freedom of the press is an essential feature of democratic societies. The Opposition has a right to expect fair coverage of their perspectives and events. But this is not happening. For this failure, the state-owned media must be condemned and it is an indictment against all governments of Guyana. However, if there have been threats and acts of intimidation against members of the state-owned media, this too is to be deplored.

The state media has a duty to report on government business. But this is not a license for imbalanced reporting and shutting out the Opposition. The state-owned media should view its role as a public broadcaster and should prioritise balanced reporting that encompasses a wide spectrum of perspectives.

It should do so while also highlighting the government’s initiatives and policies aimed at national development. By striking this balance, state-owned media can fulfill its dual mandate of informing the public while holding those in power accountable. Providing greater ventilation to opposition parties’ views is not merely a matter of fairness but also a crucial safeguard of democracy. Opposition parties serve as essential checks and balances, offering alternative viewpoints and holding the government accountable for its actions. Thus, their exclusion from public discourse undermines the very essence of democratic governance and diminishes the public’s ability to make informed decisions.

The recent claim by a state-owned broadcaster regarding its non-invite to press conferences hosted by the main Opposition partnership raises concerns about media relations. While the Opposition rightfully criticizes the imbalanced coverage by state-owned media, it cannot seek to occupy the moral high ground if it indeed excludes the state-owned media from its press conferences. If true, this exclusionary practice can only but perpetuates the cycle of distrust and animosity between the opposition and state-owned media. But it also diminishes the Opposition’s credibility in advocating for unbiased coverage by the state-media.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• democratic, media, Peeping Tom, society, spectrum

---